myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Re: [Trinidad][api]TRINIDAD-1857 Add a Map associated with each window or tab that the user is interacting with

Date

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:50:41 GMT

Hazem
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@apache.org> wrote:
> IMHO, Having a duplicate functionality implemented in both CODI and Trinidad
> is *not* a motivating thing for the users to upgrade the current working
> Trinidad version
why? So if Trinidad adds a new dependency for just this is a motivator?
sounds like an interesting strategy... the more new set of
dependencies, the better?
Ok...
> BUT it will be a painful thing to maintain on both
> projects.
Trinidad is a having its committer community, so does CODI;
I strongly doubt that one developer will write both versions.
> And for myself as an Apache MyFaces user, It is nice to see
> projects complementary to each others.
What's wrong with making the default impl in Trinidad + the options to
replace with CoDi, if one writes that??
I am willing to help on that codi-trinidad module.
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> -1 for having a duplicate functionality.
>> +1 for using CODI for the @WidnowScoped.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>> <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi blake,
>>> @trinidad window map & cdi:
>>> we are just interested in some special events like a page-refresh
>>> (triggered by the user).
>>> everything else is handled internally. -> (currently) i don't see a
>>> reason for using such an external map.
>>> @stand-alone trinidad window map:
>>> do you mean there are some internal project guidelines like:
>>> the project has to use plain trinidad.
>>> ?
>>> @page flow scope:
>>> that's a similar story - besides @WindowScoped codi provides
>>> @ConversationScoped (similar to the conversations of orchestra) as well as
>>> @ViewAccessScoped (similar to the access scope of orchestra).
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>
>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>> Courses in English and German
>>>
>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/7/21 Blake Sullivan <blake.sullivan@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hi mark,
>>>> nobody said that it would harm (at least i'm not aware of technical
>>>> issues).
>>>> (maybe some people would use it even though they shouldn't - e.g.
>>>> because they have an alternative which should be used in their
>>>> application/s.)
>>>> furthermore, i agree with martin - most projects are using (or will use)
>>>> one of the mentioned frameworks.
>>>> the questions are:
>>>> who would use this feature?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who needed to store information on a per window basis and could
>>>> live without managed bean support. We already had several teams trying
to
>>>> build this on their own. The finer-grained scopes, such as page flow scope,
>>>> should be built on top of this directly. As teams have been dealing with
>>>> fail-over issues, they are finding that they want this.
>>>>
>>>> - new projects? i don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> If they had the above issues, sure.
>>>>
>>>> - existing projects? would they upgrade to a new version of trinidad
>>>> just for using this feature?
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand. If the bar for new features is that they must be
>>>> the driving force for customers to upgrade, very few features would be added
>>>> to any project.
>>>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>>>
>>>> maybe it's the right time to discuss our plans for the future of
>>>> trinidad. (at least if we should use the maven shade plugin for modularizing
>>>> trinidad. in such a case we could also provide an all-in-one package via
>>>> special modules. so users won't see any difference, if they prefer the
>>>> existing monolithic package.)
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>
>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>> Courses in English and German
>>>>
>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/7/21 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm difficult topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please allow me a few questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> a.) Trinidad components would still work with using either Orchestra
>>>>> conversations or CODI?
>>>>> b) You are not relying on other components or the users using your
>>>>> conversation
>>>>> stuff if they don't like?
>>>>> c) if the user doesn't make use of this feature, it will not pollute
>>>>> the
>>>>> viewRoot or cause heavy performance hits?
>>>>>
>>>>> If all this is ok, then there is imo no argument against adding it to
>>>>> Trinidad.
>>>>> This doesn't mean I like it either, but it doesn't hurt at least ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>>>> >To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
>>>>> >Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:16:23 AM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Trinidad][api]TRINIDAD-1857 Add a Map associated with
>>>>> > each window
>>>>> >
>>>>> >or tab that the user is interacting with
>>>>> >
>>>>> >i agree with martin.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >regards,
>>>>> >gerhard
>>>>> >
>>>>> >http://www.irian.at
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>>> >JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>>> >Courses in English and German
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >2010/7/21 Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek@apache.org>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Hi Matthias,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Not everybody is using CDI and/or Spring.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>well, in the real world and a little while in the future, there
is
>>>>> >> not
>>>>> >>many people who will not have one of these frameworks in their
>>>>> >>applications.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> I think, on long term we may want one clean and independent
API,
>>>>> >>> where
>>>>> >>> all these projects offer an implementation for a window/event
>>>>> >>> system:
>>>>> >>> -CODI
>>>>> >>> -Orchestra
>>>>> >>> -Trinidad
>>>>> >>> -etc
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> However, right now, Trinidad has the base already and adding
a new
>>>>> >>> toolset to the belt feels kinda wrong.
>>>>> >>> Again +1 on this to be inside of Trinidad.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> This does not mean that we could work on a better future
version of
>>>>> >>> a
>>>>> >>> more unified API, for this. Right?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>yes, this is what we could and what we should. Why not take this
>>>>> >>addition as a reason to do this right now? If we don´t take
such
>>>>> >>additions as a reason to do this, what else will be our reason?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>best regards,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Martin
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>--
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>http://www.irian.at
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>>> >>JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>>> >>Courses in English and German
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
>>
>> Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
>> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>>
>> Web blog: http://hazems.blogetery.com/
>>
>> [Web 2.0] Mashups Integration with JSF:
>> http://code.google.com/p/mashups4jsf/
>
>
>
> --
> Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
>
> Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
> http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>
> Web blog: http://hazems.blogetery.com/
>
> [Web 2.0] Mashups Integration with JSF:
> http://code.google.com/p/mashups4jsf/
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf